State v. Moorehead

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Moorehead

392 S.W.3d 531, 2013 WL 704442, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 246

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. ED 98160·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Moorehead (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a [532] jury convicted him of forcible rape and forcible sodomy.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Moorehead (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a [532] jury convicted him of forcible rape and forcible sodomy.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Moorehead, 392 S.W.3d 531, 2013 WL 704442, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 246 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

392 S.W.3d 531 (State v. Moorehead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.